Jump to content

Tillig Track Question


Night Train
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have been looking at the range of track from TIllig and have a couple of questions regarding their points.

 

The EW-2 points are offered in 2 versions.

Simple Turnout http://www.conrad.com/ce/en/product/248938/Tillig-H0-85422-H0-Simple-Turnout-Left-W2?ref=searchDetail

Simple Soft Turnout http://www.conrad.com/ce/en/product/248925/Tillig-H0-85324-H0-Simple-Soft-EW-2-left?ref=searchDetail

Does anyone know what the difference is?

 

What is the recommended point motor for these?

This type? http://www.modellbahnshop-lippe.com/produkt/Tillig/4-4-0-24169-007003-0-0-0-0-2-0-grp-gb-p-0/ein_produkt.html

Or this? http://www.modellbahnshop-lippe.com/produkt/Tillig/4-4-0-60472-007003-0-0-0-0-1-0-grp-gb-p-0/ein_produkt.html

 

Are there any 3 way points that would blend in with Tillig track. I am a little  surprised they do not manufacture one themselves. Or is there another track manufacturer worth considering instead for a small layout?

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there,

I can't help with any differences between the two points you have linked to, apart from the obvious price, sorry.

Personally I would use Conrad's own point motor, I find it pretty good and easy enough to set up.

http://www.conrad-electronic.co.uk/ce/en/product/219998/Universal-Point-Control-Mechanism

 

As for the 3 way point, you could try Herr Weller here: http://www.g-weller.de/his range can be for either Tillig or Peco compatible.

He does communicate, slowly but will only do direct bank transfer for payment, expensive for us in UK.

HTH,

John E.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I have been looking at the range of track from TIllig and have a couple of questions regarding their points.

 

The EW-2 points are offered in 2 versions.

Simple Turnout http://www.conrad.com/ce/en/product/248938/Tillig-H0-85422-H0-Simple-Turnout-Left-W2?ref=searchDetail

Simple Soft Turnout http://www.conrad.com/ce/en/product/248925/Tillig-H0-85324-H0-Simple-Soft-EW-2-left?ref=searchDetail

Does anyone know what the difference is?

 

What is the recommended point motor for these?

This type? http://www.modellbahnshop-lippe.com/produkt/Tillig/4-4-0-24169-007003-0-0-0-0-2-0-grp-gb-p-0/ein_produkt.html

Or this? http://www.modellbahnshop-lippe.com/produkt/Tillig/4-4-0-60472-007003-0-0-0-0-1-0-grp-gb-p-0/ein_produkt.html

 

Are there any 3 way points that would blend in with Tillig track. I am a little  surprised they do not manufacture one themselves. Or is there another track manufacturer worth considering instead for a small layout?

Thanks.

 

Roco does a 3-way point which has, I think, a 15 degree crossing angle, which I think is the same as some of the Tillig range.

 

Shinohara also do a 3-way point in Code 83 but the sleeper spacings will look a bit odd next to the Tillig. It has crossing angles #6 (9.3 degrees) and #8 (7.1 degrees).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I use these ones 86112 and find them fairly reliable.  I hadn't seen the other ones but looking at them am not sure if they would actually drive the motor.  Maybe they are a supplementary indicator of the how the point is switched? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tillig does do a three-way point - I have two in use on my layout. I find the Tillig turnouts OK and I have over 20 standard and curved points, plus 2 three-ways and 2 double slips. They have been generally very reliable, although with a couple the bronze spring strip of the Roco turnout drives sawed through the relatively soft plastic of the tie-bar! Some of the turnouts have been in use now for over 7 years and are still fine.

I can recommend Tillig track!

post-17587-0-97587000-1434885524.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I have been looking at the range of track from TIllig and have a couple of questions regarding their points.

 

The EW-2 points are offered in 2 versions.

Simple Turnout http://www.conrad.com/ce/en/product/248938/Tillig-H0-85422-H0-Simple-Turnout-Left-W2?ref=searchDetail

Simple Soft Turnout http://www.conrad.com/ce/en/product/248925/Tillig-H0-85324-H0-Simple-Soft-EW-2-left?ref=searchDetail

Does anyone know what the difference is?

 

What is the recommended point motor for these?

This type? http://www.modellbahnshop-lippe.com/produkt/Tillig/4-4-0-24169-007003-0-0-0-0-2-0-grp-gb-p-0/ein_produkt.html

Or this? http://www.modellbahnshop-lippe.com/produkt/Tillig/4-4-0-60472-007003-0-0-0-0-1-0-grp-gb-p-0/ein_produkt.html

 

Are there any 3 way points that would blend in with Tillig track. I am a little  surprised they do not manufacture one themselves. Or is there another track manufacturer worth considering instead for a small layout?

Thanks.

Looking at the two links I think that the difference is that the cheaper one is a kit, at least that is what it says under product details. I have used tillig points because I love the appearance. The tiebar is delicate. I use DCC concepts point motors, but have now decided to fit them to the extension of the tie bar rather than using the hole in between the rails. As I show in my gallery pictures I destroyed one with an over zealous truck cleaning as the pointmotors rod stuck up a bit too high between the track, and I snagged it with the track cleaner :-(

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Hi Night Train

 

Let me know if you go down the kit route, I have been looking at these and debating whether to take the plunge and have a go at them or to buy ready made.

Be good to get a run down on how they got together

Edited by Willoughby Glen
Link to post
Share on other sites

Use 86112 motors. I used 86110's and apart from them being noisy, they were terrific. Be aware that Tillig track comes in either a standard type or an Elite type and the latter is superb in appearance but is an HO offering so sleepering and indeed chairs are not UK scale.

 

I would imagine that the 'soft; point has a different frog angle but others who state that it is flexible may well be right. Useful if things are not quite lined up and much more prototypical so making less of a train set when laid. Although possibly listed as 'kits' they aren't as such.

 

Note that the two points pics you have linked to are in fact identical except one has the legend 'image similar' which means you would be hard put to tell the difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Has anyone ever used the Tillig H0/H0e combined track, turnouts and cross-overs?

 

It would represent quite an investment..

But as I have a combined Ho/H0e layout in the planning/building/stock acquisition phase..

It might make for some interesting running..

 

Here is a place in Zurich that sells much of the range..

http://www.navemo.ch/tillig-h0---h0m/tillig-elite-gleissystem/h0-h0e-dreischienengleis/index.php

 

I'm looking for some encouragement to take the plunge or be dissuaded :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

TL85141 - HO Curved Track R21-425mm

TL85143 - HO Curved Track R31-484mm

TL85145 - HO Curved Track R41-543mm

 

Track geometry

 

Straight tracks:

• The lengths of the straight track sections are determined by the standard element length of 228 mm and the

corresponding 1/2 and 1/4 divisions. In addition, various filler sections compensate the length differences

arising during track installation.

• Standard track spacing is 59 mm

• Fixed curve radii of 366, 425, 484 and 543 mm, in each case as 30° sections.

• Greater radii can be achieved by using so-called flexi-track

• Flexi-track caters for all individual needs and wishes with regard to track length and curve radius.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. Still confused

Here are the Hornby 3rd and 4th radius and Tillig 3rd and 4th radius laid side by side with each type as a double track curve

post-147-0-59812100-1501176986.jpg

 

And here they are Tillig 3rd, Hornby 3rd, Tillig 4th, Hornby 4th

post-147-0-49322900-1501177026.jpg

The Hornby 3rd (505mm radius) is clearly curving into the Tillig 3rd  (484mm)

 

Have ordered a pair of Roco 481mm curves to see if they are actually tighter than the Hornby 3rd.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone ever used the Tillig H0/H0e combined track, turnouts and cross-overs?

 

 

 

Used a short section of dual gauge track and a couple of points for OH's narrow gauge layout.  Quite satisfied with the results and still there 20years later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I part-built a layout a few years back with Tillig track, the flexible type. It looked good and no problems with running. The curved points were very tight on radius for some of my stock; the point blades are not pivoted so needed a powerful point motor to move them across. I dismantled the layout and sold all the pointwork.

 

Would I use it again? Yes, on a German style layout, but would modify the tiebars to something stronger and cut the blades so they pivot a bit better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Code 83 Elite curved points come in a number of different radius

543mm & 377mm radius    RH  85333    LH 85334  - in uk setrack terms 3.56th & 1.09th radii

866mm & 425mm radius    RH 85363     LH  85364                                       8.39th & 1.81th radii

787mm & 484mm radius    RH 85313     LH  85314                                        7.21th & 2.69th radii

934mm & 543mm radius    RH 85373     LH  85374                                        9.4th & 3.56th radii

Also they are slightly flexible and more so if cut through the sleepers between the diverging tracks so the radii can be tweaked quite significantly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The Roco curves turned up (481.2mm radius). Here they are with the far gentler Tillig "484mm" radius ones :scratchhead:

attachicon.gifIMG_20170729_123354053.jpg

 

I think you are deceiving yourself - and possibly others as well.

 

1.  If you look to the bottom of the picture it is clear that the first sleepers are not in line.  The Tillig (right) is inclined so that inevitably it is going to diverge from the track on the left (Roco).

2.  Then when we get to the to the first joint between rails (clearly seen on the left track) the right track has a distinct misalignment pushing the right track still further out.  (Look at the alignments of adjacent sleepers to see the kink).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are deceiving yourself - and possibly others as well.

 

1.  If you look to the bottom of the picture it is clear that the first sleepers are not in line.  The Tillig (right) is inclined so that inevitably it is going to diverge from the track on the left (Roco).

2.  Then when we get to the to the first joint between rails (clearly seen on the left track) the right track has a distinct misalignment pushing the right track still further out.  (Look at the alignments of adjacent sleepers to see the kink).

Maybe the tracks were not lined up strictly perfectly in the photo but the simple fact was joining the Tillig 484mm curves together on the layout resulted in a curve gentler than Hornby/Peco 505mm curves whereas the Roco curves formed a sharper curve. Tillig track by its very nature is flexible and the setrack curves have a degree of slop in them causing them to naturally straighten out. The rail is loose in its sleepers apart from an occasional metal stud on the underneath of the rail into the sleeper base, compared to Hornby/Peco/Roco method of a rigid sleeper base with the rails held tightly to it at every chair.The only way I found of getting the Tillig curves to become anywhere near the radius they are meant to be, short of forming a stack into  circle, was to lay one of the Roco curves upside down with its rails bearing on the inside of the Tillig ones so acting as a radius template. 

Edited by Butler Henderson
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Butler,

I can't understand the point you are trying to make, or the problem you are having.

 

Tillig elite is not to be compared with the likes of Hornby or peco settrack, it could be said that while each piece of tillig elite will conform to the manufactures specification if required, each curved piece still allows a certain amount of flexibility to meet the modellers specific requirement, unlike true settrack (Hornby/peco) which tends to be quite rigid.

 

I cannot speak to roco, as I have never used it.

 

To date my current investment in tillig elite tracking is in excess of $2k, essentially points and flex track, and while not perfect, for a rtr track system it is excellent. It's ability to meet the needs of the individual, while delivering prototypical rail work sets it apart in the areas of finish and ease of installation.

 

Could I suggest that you consider a transition to a flex track system that matches the track system you are currently using, and generally dispense with settrack where possible.

 

best regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

I use flexible track but have always found it best to use setrack curves when the radius gets that tight. The issue was I needed a curve sharper than UK 3rd radius (505mm)  but not as sharp as 2nd radius (438mm). The larger radius Tillig curves seem to keep their intended radii. I too use Tillig points where appropriate and make use of their flexible properties; Tillig Elite and Code 100 can easily be mixed together as the height to the rail top is the same and Pecos clunky Code 75 to 100 joiners fit, while other Code 83 ranges require a soldered joint to Code 100.  The Roco track is stiff like Peco/Hornby setrack so it was far easier to use in laying a sharpish curve/

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...
On 21/06/2015 at 14:13, Vistisen said:

Looking at the two links I think that the difference is that the cheaper one is a kit, at least that is what it says under product details. I have used tillig points because I love the appearance. The tiebar is delicate. I use DCC concepts point motors, but have now decided to fit them to the extension of the tie bar rather than using the hole in between the rails. As I show in my gallery pictures I destroyed one with an over zealous truck cleaning as the pointmotors rod stuck up a bit too high between the track, and I snagged it with the track cleaner :-(

 

On 15/08/2017 at 23:01, roythebus said:

I part-built a layout a few years back with Tillig track, the flexible type. It looked good and no problems with running. The curved points were very tight on radius for some of my stock; the point blades are not pivoted so needed a powerful point motor to move them across. I dismantled the layout and sold all the pointwork.

 

Would I use it again? Yes, on a German style layout, but would modify the tiebars to something stronger and cut the blades so they pivot a bit better.

 

Bumping an old thread here as the nearest I can find to some Tillig questions.

 

I'm about to start laying Tillig Elite into Tillig Styrostone, to operate with with Cobalt stall motors. Experience of this particular combo, or with other stall motors, welcome!

 

To all (and Vistisen in particular as above), why would you fit the motors to the extension of the tie bar rather than using the hole in between the rails? In particular, does this assist, or be detrimental to, tie-bar longevity, in anyone's experience?

 

I appreciate that the tie bars are fragile, and from my electronic trawls at least some replace this with copper-clad.  As I'm using Tillig Styrostone, I guess if I have a  tie-bar failure I have at least a chance that the point may be removable from the Styrostone and therefore salvageable, whereas if I was traditionally ballasting I can see that the point fragility would easily result in write-offs.  

 

Finally, if anyone has used Styrostone on a dismantle-able layout, with board joints, presumably you still secured the rail ends with brass screws or copper-clad? As you have to fit the track into the Styrostone before laying, I can see this may be tricky!

 

Thanks in anticipation.

 

WB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, wandering blue said:

 

To all (and Vistisen in particular as above), why would you fit the motors to the extension of the tie bar rather than using the hole in between the rails? In particular, does this assist, or be detrimental to, tie-bar longevity, in anyone's experience?

 

 

Tilligs tiebar is very delicate. I use the Cobalt point motors, the the rod on them is too big to fit the hole in the tiebar, opening it up makes it even more fragile. I have destroyed two points when cleaning them with a track rubber og cloth that has snagged on the sticking up bar and destroyed the points tiebar beyond repair. By using the extension you get the pin out of the way of the tracking cleaning process. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...